How New Police Strategies are Cracking Down on
the
Right to Dissent: An Interview with Heidi Boghosian

by Benjamin Danglwww.dissidentvoice.org
July 27, 2004

Within
the last few years the strategies police use to control activist events
have changed dramatically. Massive pens divided and contained protesters
at the February 15, 2003 anti-war rally in New York City. Hundreds of
preemptive arrests took place at The Free Trade Area of the Americas
protest in Miami in 2003, and at this year’s G8
Summit on Sea Island, Georgia, roughly 500 protesters were met by a police
and military force of nearly 25,000. Organizers of activist events and
marches at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions are already
running into road blocks as local officials refuse to cooperate in the
issuance of permits. These are just some of the tactics being used to
crack down on the right to dissent and prevent protests before they start.

Heidi Boghosian is the Executive Director of
the National Lawyers Guild (www.nlg.org),
and is the co-host of the civil liberties radio show "Law and Disorder" on
WBAI in New York. In this interview,
Boghosian discusses how police control
of protests has changed since September 11th, what the “Miami
Model” entails, how the threat of terrorism is being used as an excuse to
clamp down on civil liberties, and what activists can do to prevent and
fight against such pressure.

Benjamin Dangl:
From what I’ve heard of the FTAA protests in Miami, and what I saw at the
G8 protests in Georgia, there seems to be a new police strategy to chill
dissent. Could you briefly describe this new strategy, which some have
called the “Miami Model”? How does it differ from pre-September 11th
protest control?

Heidi
Boghosian: Post-September 11 police strategies have institutionalized
several practices that were already beginning to take shape a few years
before and that imperil civil liberties for everyone in this country. The
Seattle City Council's World Trade Organization Accountability Review
Committee found that police and city leaders abdicated their
responsibility in planning for the WTO protests, a failure that put people
at risk and contributed to a violation of protesters' constitutional
rights. The general strategy includes using unnecessary, excessive force
on peaceful protesters (often without any order to disperse or with an
inaudible one, so that police can say that people failed to obey their
orders); pre-textual administrative searches of organizers'
planning headquarters, false or unlawful arrests of large numbers of
peaceful protesters which results in keeping them off the streets for
significant parts of demonstrations, denial of permits or
unnecessarily burdensome requirements to get permits (such as taking out
liability insurance, which few can afford); sending messages to the
public, echoed in the media, that protesters are lawless and violent;
erecting containment pens to trap protesters into a confined space; using
motorcycles and bicycles to herd protesters, and passing event-specific
ordinances, as in Miami, which are usually found unconstitutional.

BD: How is
the threat of terrorism being used by the police as an excuse to crack
down on dissent?

HB: In
times of war the government is often intolerant of the First Amendment
protections of speech. We now see a multi-level erosion of protections
that we've taken for granted, from the relaxing of guidelines on
domestic spying, to the questioning and infiltration of meetings on
college campuses, to the announcement of former press secretary Ari
Fleischer to "watch what we say." The government sets the standard that
any kind of speech that challenges the administration's policies in any
way is subject to heightened scrutiny. That standard and memoranda issued
by the FBI to local law enforcement, signals to police that any kind of
speech that questions the government is potentially dangerous. The passage
of the USA PATRIOT Act includes a very broad definition of "domestic
terrorism," which can arguably apply to all acts of protest.

BD: What
effect does this have on the locals where the protests are taking place?
Are they being harassed and intimidated as well?

HB: From
what we saw at the G-8 Summit in Georgia, most of the local residents
resented the enormous military presence and the intrusion of the military
into their daily lives. They got to know many of the protesters and were
sympathetic to their wish to be able to exercise their First Amendment
right to engage in demonstrations and rallies. The larger and more
visible the presence of local and federal law enforcement, often
outnumbering protesters, often draws attention to the fact that law
enforcement is overreacting.

BD: Are
preemptive arrests and the late issuance of permits new tactics?

HB: Late
issuance of permits, as well as other requirements to get permits, such as
taking out liability insurance or even bond to pay for police or related
services, is definitely part of the new police tactics. Late issuance
makes protest planning nearly impossible and has the effect of
interrupting or stalling effective planning by people traveling from out
of town. Preemptive arrests are a large part of the new police tactics.
Most often, the arrests are not based on probable cause and charges are
ultimately dropped. Review commissions around the country are starting to
report on this tactic, so it seems to be generally recognized as an
attempt to disrupt the flow of free speech.

BD:
What police tactics do you expect at the Democratic and Republican
National Conventions?

HD: We
expect to see the same set of preemptive tactics that we've witnessed in
other major cities across the nation, and will take note of any new
tactics as well. We've already seen the delaying and denying of permits
and expect to see mass false arrests, raids of organizing places, use of
excessive force on peaceful protesters, and use of the "rush" tactic that
we saw in New York on February 15, 2003 where police rode horses into
crowds.

BD: How
much are these police tactics affecting activist turnout at protests? Do
you expect low turnouts at the DNC and the RNC?

HB: We
expect large turnouts in both Boston and New York. Despite the
possibility of continued police suppression tactics, people want to
exercise their right to express their political views. The Republican and
Democratic Conventions are symbolic events at which to do so.

BD: What
is your advice to activists and organizers to help deal with and fight
against these crack downs?

HB: First,
know your basic rights and also become familiar with the laws pertaining
to protest in both cities -- a local Lawyers Guild chapter or member can
assist with this and there are many law collectives around the country
that conduct Know Your Rights trainings. During the demonstration(s),
write telephone numbers on your person in case of an emergency (the
National Lawyers Guild number in New York City will be available in early
to mid August) and make sure that if you are arrested you have made an
arrangement with a friend to write down the location of the arrest, any
identifying information about the arresting officer, names and numbers of
witnesses and any other details that might prove helpful later on.
Keeping detailed information about any unlawful and unconstitutional
police conduct is important, especially if you are seriously injured.